ILNews

Supreme Court creates civil legal services commission

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Providing access to civil legal services for low-income Hoosiers will be the focus of a commission established by order of the Indiana Supreme Court.

The order dated Sept. 23 and posted on the court’s website Wednesday outlines a commission that advocates have proposed for improving access to justice. The body will be known as the Indiana Commission to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services.

The 17-member commission is tasked with developing a five-year plan to “improve and enhance the availability and effective provision of civil legal services to low-income or otherwise disadvantaged Indiana residents,” according to the order. This must be done within a year of the group’s initial meeting.

The commission also is chartered to recommend improvements in “communications, promptness, efficiency, courtesy, and other qualities of service” to court users.

“A group of Indiana stakeholders has approached the Indiana Supreme Court and urged the Court to create a broad-based commission to work toward a goal of expanding the availability and provision of civil legal services to Indiana residents with limited financial resources,” the order says, noting more than half the states have such panels commonly referred to as “access to justice” commissions.

The commission will meet at least quarterly and meetings will be open to the public. The Supreme Court will appoint members according to the composition of the commission outlined in the order, and the court also will select the group’s initial chair and vice-chair.

“The establishment of the Commission is not intended to replace other entities offering services supporting the availability of legal services to poor or other disadvantaged Indiana residents,” the order says, noting it will cooperate with other various stakeholders.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT